The story of what led bobby sands to join the IRA

maryishere

Jesus. wrote: »

That's two glaring points you've failed to address Mary.

What points? I am not on here 24/7. If you want to set up a thread and derail this discussion to talk about Kenya, then do so. About 6 hours ago someone was talking about armies and the IRA being at "war" and the British and Russian armies etc. I made the point the British, German, Japanese etc armies were the armies of a state. The armies of a democratically elected government. The IRA was not the army of a state or a democratically elected govt. It was more a secretive terrorist organisation than an army. Furthermore, you were complaining about the behaviour of the British army. I made the point that even among its enemies and adversaries (eg Germans, Italians, Japanese, Russians ) the British were very well respected. In fact it generally did not carry out atrocities / war crimes like the Japanese, Russians, Germans etc. Of course you will tell the Kenyans there was widespread British torture and murder in N. Ireland, and vice versa, and of course the dastardly British committed dreadful war crimes in the occupied six counties. Happy now?

Now this thread is about Bobby Sands. How did he ever get a burger joint in Iran named after him?

corner of hells

jack923 wrote: »

Thatcher said they would treat them as a criminal gang this was the policy so if they were to treat them as a criminal gang which they weren't treating them as such then why is my logic baffling? They were saying it wasn't a war but were acting as if it was so how can you find my logic baffling?

Your logic right there when you said it wasn't a war because you can't be at war with your own citizens is baffling, does the Irish war of independence ring a bell? Or do you think that also wasn't a war?

What's disturbing , Jack , is how you comfortably violence sits with you , how you can dismiss every argument with comments suggesting subterfuge and double agents and how you seem to yearn for the years of terrorism.Three thousand dead and countless more maimed physically and mentally.


Jack , I think I'll leave it with you.

R P McMurphy

corner of hells wrote: »

Your logic is baffling " if the British acknowledge it was a war , they could have a shoot to kill policy " ? Am I right so far ?
Yet the IRA because said " it was a war " they get a carte blanche.

Oddly enough I doubt the UK would ever call it " a war " because if you think about it you can't be at war with your own citizens.

There are different classifications under international humanitarian law: international, non-international and internal strife

maryishere

jack923 wrote: »

No harm in giving catholics a vote they cannot win I suppose.

In the referendum, people were not asked if they were Catholics or not. Religion had nothing to do with it. People were asked if they wanted to stay in the UK or join the rest of Ireland. 98.9% wanted to stay in the UK.
Incidentally even nowadays, as many northern Catholics have UK passports (from their auld enemy!) as have Rep. of Ireland passports, even though they are free to have either.

Jesus.

maryishere wrote: »

What points? I am not on here 24/7. If you want to set up a thread and derail this discussion to talk about Kenya, then do so. About 6 hours ago someone was talking about armies and the IRA being at "war" and the British and Russian armies etc. I made the point the British, German, Japanese etc armies were the armies of a state. The armies of a democratically elected government. The IRA was not the army of a state or a democratically elected govt. It was more a secretive terrorist organisation than an army. Furthermore, you were complaining about the behaviour of the British army. I made the point that even among its enemies and adversaries (eg Germans, Italians, Japanese, Russians ) the British were very well respected. In fact it generally did not carry out atrocities / war crimes like the Japanese, Russians, Germans etc. Of course you will tell the Kenyans there was widespread British torture and murder in N. Ireland, and vice versa, and of course the dastardly British committed dreadful war crimes in the occupied six counties. Happy now?Now this thread is about Bobby Sands. How did he ever get a burger joint in Iran named after him?

You don't have to be here 24/7. You were here when I replied to your erroneous statements because you subsequently went on to make other posts therefore conveniently ignoring what I called you out on. Now please, do not do so this time.

* You said both sides on the fleg burning bonfires issue were as bad as each other. I replied that (A) Its 95/5 in Unionists favour in percentage terms and (B) every nationalist politician condemns them and are actively trying to eradicate such behaviour. In the mean time unionist politicians refuse to do so and claim its "culture". Therefore both sides are not even remotely as bad as each other on this issue. Now either accept you were wrong and change your thinking or dispute these facts.

* You said the British Army are accepted as fair and even handed (even when they're dealing out death on a mass scale :rolleyes:).I gave you an example of British Army atrocities in Kenya and you said my author made it up. Regarding your instance of the Army being the instrument of democracy I asked you how many of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were butchered as a result of the US/UK invasion had a vote or a say in their own Country's near obliteration?

Please answer the first point regarding the bonfires, the second regarding Kenya and the third regarding the populations of the Countries the British invaded.

Jesus.

corner of hells wrote: »

What's disturbing , Jack , is how you comfortably violence sits with you.

Are you a pacifist Sir?

jack923

corner of hells wrote: »

What's disturbing , Jack , is how you comfortably violence sits with you , how you can dismiss every argument with comments suggesting subterfuge and double agents and how you seem to yearn for the years of terrorism.Three thousand dead and countless more maimed physically and mentally.


Jack , I think I'll leave it with you.

You lost your argument so your now attacking my moral standpoint so I'm not even going to bother replying.

jack923

maryishere wrote: »

In the referendum, people were not asked if they were Catholics or not. Religion had nothing to do with it. People were asked if they wanted to stay in the UK or join the rest of Ireland. 98.9% wanted to stay in the UK.
Incidentally even nowadays, as many northern Catholics have UK passports (from their auld enemy!) as have Rep. of Ireland passports, even though they are free to have either.

I didn't say they were? Yes people don't care anymore they just want to live in peace they are being treated equally and fairly and discrimination is now as much on the Catholic side as it is on the Protestant side.

Everyone is equal in the North now, equal opportunity and rights for everyone

jack923

maryishere wrote: »

What points? I am not on here 24/7. If you want to set up a thread and derail this discussion to talk about Kenya, then do so. About 6 hours ago someone was talking about armies and the IRA being at "war" and the British and Russian armies etc. I made the point the British, German, Japanese etc armies were the armies of a state. The armies of a democratically elected government. The IRA was not the army of a state or a democratically elected govt. It was more a secretive terrorist organisation than an army. Furthermore, you were complaining about the behaviour of the British army. I made the point that even among its enemies and adversaries (eg Germans, Italians, Japanese, Russians ) the British were very well respected. In fact it generally did not carry out atrocities / war crimes like the Japanese, Russians, Germans etc. Of course you will tell the Kenyans there was widespread British torture and murder in N. Ireland, and vice versa, and of course the dastardly British committed dreadful war crimes in the occupied six counties. Happy now?

Now this thread is about Bobby Sands. How did he ever get a burger joint in Iran named after him?

The Iranians are very fond of martyrdom so they seen him as a hero and they wanted to commemorate him, might have to visit that place I wonder if the burgers taste as good as it would have for bobby sands before he died!

maryishere

Jesus. wrote: »

You said both sides on the fleg burning bonfires issue were as bad as each other.

And indeed there are scumbags on both sides who burn flags. Most politicians tend to stay away from such things though. One notable exception being Charles Haughey, who burnt a union jack in Dublin many years ago. (1945 as far as I remember).

Jesus. wrote: »

I replied that (A) Its 95/5 in Unionists favour in percentage terms

And have you a link? What makes you think its 95/5, and not 70/30 or 98/2?
Many bonfires do not feature the burning of flags. Not all areas have bonfires.

Jesus. wrote: »

and (B) every nationalist politician condemns them and are actively trying to eradicate such behaviour. In the mean time unionist politicians refuse to do so and claim its "culture".

Have you a link for that claim?

Jesus. wrote: »

You said the British Army are accepted as fair and even handed

Generally and historically speaking, yes. Compared to Germans, Japanese, Russians etc.

Jesus. wrote: »

Regarding your instance of the Army being the instrument of democracy I asked you how many of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were butchered as a result of the US/UK invasion had a vote or a say in their own Country's near obliteration?

Britain did not invade, rape or loot Kuwait in Gulf war 1, Iraq did. The UK was one of dozens of nations which helped liberate it. In Gulf war 2, the British wore soft hats and tried to help the locals by building clean water supplies etc.
The British and Americans reached Bagdad without the need to butcher anyone, and were welcomed. And the current carnage in Iraq is largely between different sects of Islam. Thousands of Iraqis are seeking entry / asylum in the UK, not one British or Irish person is seeking asylum in Iraq afaik.

jack923

maryishere wrote: »

And indeed there are scumbags on both sides who burn flags. Most politicians tend to stay away from such things though. One notable exception being Charles Haughey, who burnt a union jack in Dublin many years ago. (1945 as far as I remember).



And have you a link? What makes you think its 95/5, and not 70/30 or 98/2?
Many bonfires do not feature the burning of flags. Not all areas have bonfires.



Have you a link for that claim?



Generally and historically speaking, yes. Compared to Germans, Japanese, Russians etc.


Britain did not invade, rape or loot Kuwait in Gulf war 1, Iraq did. The UK was one of dozens of nations which helped liberate it. In Gulf war 2, the British wore soft hats and tried to help the locals by building clean water supplies etc.
The British and Americans reached Bagdad without the need to butcher anyone, and were welcomed. And the current carnage in Iraq is largely between different sects of Islam. Thousands of Iraqis are seeking entry / asylum in the UK, not one British or Irish person is seeking asylum in Iraq afaik.

Is that why they are being done for so many war crimes in Iraq? I remember a video from a while back of a bunch of British soldiers laughing while beating up young teenagers.

Historically they were not good, historically they are the worst in all of history and also you can't say they were good because japan and russia done worse things in recent history that's like me saying the IRA are good because of ISIS.

maryishere

maryishere wrote: »

Other estimates put the Catholic turnout considerably higher than 1% but yes there was a boycott, or according to some Catholics they were intimidated by hardline Republicans not to be seen voting. Many Protestants did not vote either, but yet the poll turnout was 58.66% of Electorate, which is not far off most other elections / referendums, even in this state. Catholics had the vote, but Republicans knew they had not the numbers of followers.

How convenient of you to forget to say that Gerry Fitt and the SDLP told voters to boycott the poll.

alastair

jack923 wrote: »

The Iranians are very fond of martyrdom so they seen him as a hero and they wanted to commemorate him, might have to visit that place I wonder if the burgers taste as good as it would have for bobby sands before he died!

The Iranians couldn't give a toss about Bobby Sands or the IRA. They merely used his name as a convenient way to irritate the British - who they did give a toss about, given their history in the country.

What I don't get is that a fellah like yourself, who is clearly not up to speed as to the facts of the conflict in NI, can manage to rationalise all less palatable aspects of the 'ra into supposed 'dirty tricks' by securocrats and loyalists, and blithely roll out completely false statistics regarding the civilian deaths they were responsible for, all the while conveniently forgetting that the majority of Catholics in NI made their democratic choice in supporting non-violent representatives, who made very clear that the IRA campaign would achieve no United Ireland, nor any withdrawal of troops. Of course they were right. It shines out like a beacon, that you are too young to understand the realities of the troubles, and choices people made, or refused to make, in the face of the ****ty options being advocated by the intransigent on all sides.

maryishere

Deleted User wrote: »

How convenient of you to forget to say that Gerry Fitt and the SDLP told voters to boycott the poll.

Not all Catholics voted for Gerry Fitt and the SDLP.
Not all Catholics voted (or vote) for nationalist parties even.
The vote - and democracy - was open to all.

jack923

alastair wrote: »

The Iranians couldn't give a toss about Bobby Sands or the IRA. They merely used his name as a convenient way to irritate the British - who they did give a toss about, given their history in the country.

What I don't get is that a fellah like yourself, who is clearly not up to speed as to the facts of the conflict in NI, can manage to rationalise all less palatable aspects of the 'ra into supposed 'dirty tricks' by securocrats and loyalists, and blithely roll out completely false statistics regarding the civilian deaths they were responsible for, all the while conveniently forgetting that the majority of Catholics in NI made their democratic choice in supporting non-violent representatives, who made very clear that the IRA campaign would achieve no United Ireland, nor any withdrawal of troops. Of course they were right. It shines out like a beacon, that you are too young to understand the realities of the troubles, and choices people made, or refused to make, in the face of the ****ty options being advocated by the intransigent on all sides.

They do give a toss about him wether that was a motivation of theirs probably actually not probably it was but they do respect him.

I'm not going to reply to anything else if you want to tell me what I was lying about and the statistics I made up I will gladly answer them.

enricoh

We'll turning the other cheek wasn't exactly getting the Catholics anywhere in the late 60's so what else were they supposed to do?
Give up ? Or fight back? They fought back and as a result Catholics now have equal rights in northern Ireland. It's a pity that violence was needed but what else are u going to do when mobs are ethnic cleansing your neighbourhood by burning ye out and the cops couldn't care less.

maryishere

maryishere wrote: »

Not all Catholics voted for Gerry Fitt and the SDLP.
Not all Catholics voted (or vote) for nationalist parties even.
The vote - and democracy - was open to all.

Its a poll that doesn't carry an ounce of credibility and to pass it off as an accurate opinion on the constitutional question at that time leaves one open to accusations of ridicule. It was the BBC that claimed only about 1% of Catholics voted in it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/9/newsid_2516000/2516477.stm

maryishere

jack923 wrote: »

Is that why they are being done for so many war crimes in Iraq?

No sizeable war crimes have come to light.

jack923 wrote: »

I remember a video from a while back of a bunch of British soldiers laughing while beating up young teenagers.

I remember a video of young teenagers laughing when other young Iraqi teenagers got beheaded but if you have a link to the worst war crime of all time, a bunch of soldiers laughing while beating up young teenagers, perhaps you would share it?

jack923 wrote: »

Historically they were not good, historically they are the worst in all of history.

Yeah, right.

maryishere

Deleted User wrote: »

Its a poll that doesn't carry an ounce of credibility

Nevertheless the vote - and democracy - was open to all. Nobody can deny the majority of people in all Northern elections wanted to stay part of the UK.

maryishere

enricoh wrote: »

They fought back and as a result Catholics now have equal rights in northern Ireland. It's a pity that violence was needed .

Many notable Catholics in the RUC including RUC Chief Constable Sir James Flanagan, who survived an IRA assassination attempt; Deputy Chief Constable Michael McAtamney; Assistant Chief Constable Cathal Ramsey; Chief Superintendent Frank Lagan,and Superintendents Kevin Benedict Sheehy and Brendan McGuigan, would disagree with you that Catholics did not have equal rights for most of the 70's, 80, 90's, and that violence was needed.

jack923

maryishere wrote: »

No sizeable war crimes have come to light.


I remember a video of young teenagers laughing when other young Iraqi teenagers got beheaded but if you have a link to the worst war crime of all time, a bunch of soldiers laughing while beating up young teenagers, perhaps you would share it?


Yeah, right.

Here it is I found it for you https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V6HS6jyxoFE

"No sizeable were crimes were committed"
Is the illegal invasion of Iraq not a sizeable war crime? Or a number of incidents where they killed unarmed civilians when they were at no real threat.

"Yeah right" are you seriously denying the British Empire was one of the most horrible regimes of all time? I'm not getting into any of that it's ancient history but I'm just saying with that reply it sounds as if you are very ignorant to it.

enricoh

maryishere wrote: »

Many notable Catholics in the RUC including RUC Chief Constable Sir James Flanagan, who survived an IRA assassination attempt; Deputy Chief Constable Michael McAtamney; Assistant Chief Constable Cathal Ramsey; Chief Superintendent Frank Lagan,and Superintendents Kevin Benedict Sheehy and Brendan McGuigan, would disagree with you that Catholics did not have equal rights for most of the 70's, 80, 90's, and that violence was needed.

When sands n many others were getting thrown out of there careers n neighbourhoods was it justified?

jack923

maryishere wrote: »

Many notable Catholics in the RUC including RUC Chief Constable Sir James Flanagan, who survived an IRA assassination attempt; Deputy Chief Constable Michael McAtamney; Assistant Chief Constable Cathal Ramsey; Chief Superintendent Frank Lagan,and Superintendents Kevin Benedict Sheehy and Brendan McGuigan, would disagree with you that Catholics did not have equal rights for most of the 70's, 80, 90's, and that violence was needed.

Well being in the British Army you do get better rights than the average catholic and I would agree that they did have equal rights in the 90s.

R P McMurphy

maryishere wrote: »

Many notable Catholics in the RUC including RUC Chief Constable Sir James Flanagan, who survived an IRA assassination attempt; Deputy Chief Constable Michael McAtamney; Assistant Chief Constable Cathal Ramsey; Chief Superintendent Frank Lagan,and Superintendents Kevin Benedict Sheehy and Brendan McGuigan, would disagree with you that Catholics did not have equal rights for most of the 70's, 80, 90's, and that violence was needed.

What is up with this post that you copy and paste constantly? I think you must have posted it hundreds of times.

maryishere

enricoh wrote: »

When sands n many others were getting thrown out of there careers n neighbourhoods was it justified?

Sands was an IRA member. Sometimes IRA members were not popular in neighbourhoods or workplaces if they set up someone for a shot in the back when off duty, or threw a spanner in the workers, or told a comrade in the IRA he found out that a brother of so and so was in the security forces and lived at xyz.

maryishere

jack923 wrote: »

Well being in the British Army you do get better rights

lol. The RUC was not British army

jack923

alastair wrote: »

The Iranians couldn't give a toss about Bobby Sands or the IRA. They merely used his name as a convenient way to irritate the British - who they did give a toss about, given their history in the country.

What I don't get is that a fellah like yourself, who is clearly not up to speed as to the facts of the conflict in NI, can manage to rationalise all less palatable aspects of the 'ra into supposed 'dirty tricks' by securocrats and loyalists, and blithely roll out completely false statistics regarding the civilian deaths they were responsible for, all the while conveniently forgetting that the majority of Catholics in NI made their democratic choice in supporting non-violent representatives, who made very clear that the IRA campaign would achieve no United Ireland, nor any withdrawal of troops. Of course they were right. It shines out like a beacon, that you are too young to understand the realities of the troubles, and choices people made, or refused to make, in the face of the ****ty options being advocated by the intransigent on all sides.

I'm still curious if your going to back up your allegations as you clearly ignored my last post. I guess it's easier to just say I made all this up without saying what I made up as I said already I will gladly address anything you think I made up.

jack923

maryishere wrote: »

Sands was an IRA member. Sometimes IRA members were not popular in neighbourhoods or workplaces if they set up someone for a shot in the back when off duty, or threw a spanner in the workers, or told a comrade in the IRA he found out that a brother of so and so was in the security forces and lived at xyz.

Did you read my opening post at all? This all happened before he even joined the IRA and much of it happened even before the IRA came back into action.

jack923

maryishere wrote: »

lol. The RUC was not British army

Your right I didn't read your post properly.

maryishere

jack923 wrote: »

Did you read my opening post at all? This all happened before he even joined the IRA and much of it happened even before the IRA came back into action.

If he was an IRA member, how do you know exactly when he first passing valuable information to the Republican movement? I do not know what was said or not said at tea breaks at the place where he worked, for example. Neither do you.